Deepak & Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others

Virender Singh, J

Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.163 of 2022, dated 10.10.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 323, 324, 427 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharmashala, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’).

The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise, which has taken place between the petitioners and respondents No.2 to 4.

According to the petitioners, on the complaint of respondent No.2, the FIR, in question, has been registered against them.

It has been contended that the FIR, in question, has been lodged by respondent No.2, alleging therein that on 10.10.2022, at about 11.40 a.m. he was in the car parking area, where, verbal altercation was going on between NSUI President Anil and ABVP worker Deepak Chaudhary. At that time, Deepak Chaudhary had attacked upon Anil with Darat (big sickle). Many students have gathered there. Divesh was also sitting on his scooty there and the boys, who were there had attacked upon him, due to which, he and Divesh, had sustained injuries on their head and other parts of the body. When the boys have attacked upon them, Deepak Chaudhary was having Darat, Abhinav Chaudhary @ Abu was having rod, Abhishek Chaudhary and Tushar Chaudhary were having Kada and Avlok was having rod. When the complainant had tried to pacify them, then, Abu had attacked upon his head with rod and Deepak had attacked with fist blows. As such, the complainant has prayed that action be taken against the petitioners.

After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, which is stated to be pending adjudication before the learned trial Court.

According to the petitioners, during the pendency of the case, they and respondents No.2 to 4, have compromised, the matter. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which are annexed with the petition, as, Annexure P­3.

On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made that the FIR, as well as, proceedings, resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, may kindly be quashed and set aside, by allowing the petition.

When put to notice, respondent No.1­State has filed the status report, mentioning therein the manner, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.2, and the manner, in which, the police has investigated the matter and filed the charge­ sheet, which is pending adjudication before the learned trial Court.

The petitioners have impleaded the complainant, as, respondent No.2 and the injured as respondents No.3 and 4.

The person, who, at one point of time, had levelled the allegations against the petitioners, and had lodged the FIR, in question, appeared, before this Court and made a statement, on oath, that on account of trivial matter, a scuffle/quarrel had taken place and respondent No.2 has lodged FIR, in question, against the petitioners. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, which is pending before the learned trial Court.

Respondent No.2, has further deposed that now, during the pendency of the trial, the matter has been compromised between him, and the petitioners, as well as, respondents No.3 and 4. He has specifically stated that he has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for.

Similar type of statements have also been made by the petitioners, as well as respondents No.3 and 4, on oath.

Heard.

In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.2, by lodging the FIR, in question, who initially had levelled the allegations against the petitioners, however, when appeared before this Court, he has submitted that the matter has been compromised between, him, and the petitioners, as well as, respondents No.3 and 4.

Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has compromised the matter with the petitioners, in such situation, the chances of success of prosecution case against the petitioners are not so bright.

When the parties, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise deed Annexure P­3, then, permitting the proceedings to continue against the petitioners, would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law.

The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society. Acceptance of the petition, would also give another opportunity to the petitioners, as well as, respondents No.2 to 4 to live peacefully in the society.

Even otherwise, acceptance of the compromise, by this Court, will save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, which, the learned Court would be in a position to devote for the decision of some other serious matters, pending before it.

Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P­3, entered into between the parties.

Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR, in question, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed.

The compromise deed, Annexure P­3, and the statements of the parties, recorded in this case, in the Court, shall form part of the judgment.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.